RomneyCare & ObamaCare: Can you tell the difference?

• Bigdogg

  I found this interesting. See how you can do. I got all but 1 right.
  

  Last week, Mitt Romney gave a speech and a PowerPoint presentation to distance himself from the new federal health care law, which Republicans often call "ObamaCare." But the truth is that there are an awful lot of similarities between the plan he signed in Massachusetts in 2006, often called "RomneyCare," and the one that President Barack Obama signed in 2010.
  
  Both leave in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. They seek to reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid and by offering tax breaks to help moderate income people buy insurance. People are required to buy insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the "individual mandate." And companies that don't offer insurance have to pay fines, with exceptions for small business and a few other cases.
  
  Take the quiz
  
  Are you smart enough to tell the difference between ObamaCare and RomneyCare? Here are 10 descriptions of the plans that we got from the legislation that created the two plans, official summaries, private reports and interviews with experts. See if you know whether each description is for ObamaCare or RomneyCare.
  
  1. "Individuals who are deemed able to afford health insurance but fail to comply are subject to penalties for each month of non-compliance in the tax year ... . The penalties, which will be imposed through the individual’s personal income tax return, shall not exceed 50% of the minimum monthly insurance premium."
  
  2. Employers "who employ 11 or more full-time equivalent employees" and do not make a "fair and reasonable contribution" to their employees' health insurance are required to pay a fine.
  
  3. "Tax credits to make it easier for the middle class to afford insurance will become available for people with income between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line who are not eligible for other affordable coverage."
  
  4. Children and adolescents up to age 18 "whose financial eligibility as determined by the division exceeds 133 per cent but is not more than 300 per cent of the federal poverty level" will be eligible for Medicaid.
  
  5. "Americans who earn less than 133 percent of the poverty level (approximately $14,000 for an individual and $29,000 for a family of four) will be eligible to enroll in Medicaid."
  
  6. A recent poll asked people whether they had a generally favorable or unfavorable view of the health plan. Responses split 41 percent and 41 percent between favoring and not favoring. Another 18 percent said they were undecided.
  
  7. Small businesses qualify for tax credits if they pay for at least half of the workers' health insurance. A small business is defined as having fewer than 25 full-time workers paid average annual wages below $50,000.
  
  8. Experience shows the plan is not significantly going to lower costs. Supporters of the law are actively considering new legislation aimed at cost containment.
  
  9. The plan creates a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute "to conduct research to provide information about the best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions."
  
  10. For individuals who make more than $200,000 or couples that make more than $250,000, the plan increases Medicare taxes on wages in 2013 by 0.9 percent and imposes a 3.8 percent tax on investment income.

  Answers here:
  
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/18/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/
• majorspark

  

  One big difference. RomneyCare is constitutional. ObamaCare isn't.
• Ty Webb

  

  This is the singular reason why when Romney wins the nomination(IMO the only viable candidate for the Republicans) he will get trounced in the General Election by President Obama
• Thread Bomber

  

  Thre is no difference as they are both BAD ideas.
• stlouiedipalma

  majorspark;773757 wrote:One big difference. RomneyCare is constitutional. ObamaCare isn't.

  
  Just your opinion. There are nine Justices who get to make that call.
• The Boss

  

  majorspark;773757 wrote:One big difference. RomneyCare is constitutional. ObamaCare isn't.

  Thread Bomber;773770 wrote:Thre is no difference as they are both BAD ideas.

  
  +2
  
  Just another example of why I HATE Romney. So disappointed in my fellow right wingers right now.
• The Boss

  

  stlouiedipalma;773779 wrote:Just your opinion. There are nine Justices who get to make that call.

  
  LOL, well let's be honest, it's just their opinion too because the Constitution only holds as much weight as the Justices allow it to. If they want to ignore it they will, it's happened A LOT and is happening more frequently.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Neither is a great idea BUT AT LEAST ROMNEY'S IS SOMETHING BEING DONE BY THE STATE ONLY FOR RESIDENTS OF THE STATE. If they don't like it, they can always move away. Obamacare infests the entire country (is unConstitutional in my view) and would basically force you to renounce your citizenship to get away from it.
  
  Romney will never be the nominee because of this. To attack Obama on this would make him appear to be a hypocrite, and whoever is running for the GOP will have to attack Obama's attempt to have government take over (basically) health care as a key part of their campaign.
• jhay78

  

  Thread Bomber;773770 wrote:Thre is no difference as they are both BAD ideas.

  
  +1
  
  One may be constitutional, but both fly in the face of limited government, individual liberty, etc.
• stlouiedipalma

  Let's not forget Mitch Daniels' health care leanings...
  
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/mitch-daniels-obamacare-similar-reforms_n_864157.html
• O-Trap

  

  jhay78;773839 wrote:+1
  
  One may be constitutional, but both fly in the face of limited government, individual liberty, etc.

  
  Bingo.
  
  And I'm even seeing Romney's as being constitutional on a technicality.
• stlouiedipalma

  Interesting piece in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch regarding a local man who is being denied coverage for treatment. I'm not passing any judgement on his particular case or on the insurance provider, but it isn't just black and white statistics when it's you or a member of your family who is affected by a bureaucratic decision.
  
  http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_81fe3a4b-6fab-5082-a2eb-2cdad984ab44.html
• Writerbuckeye

  

  So which would you rather have, louie, coverage denied by a private insurer -- or coverage denied by some government bureaucrat?
  
  It's going to happen in both situations, and likely already has (via Medicare and Medicaid).
• O-Trap

  

  stlouiedipalma;777390 wrote:... it isn't just black and white statistics when it's you or a member of your family who is affected by a bureaucratic decision.

  Certainly, such a circumstance is one nobody ever wants to see happen close to home, and I won't pretend that I could even begin to understand the emotional turmoil it would cause in my own life.
  
  However, emotional anecdotes don't justify this. My wife may need treatment for cancer, and we may not be able to afford it, but that does not mean that someone owes it to us or should give it to us. My wife's and my rights do continue to stop where others start, and I have no legitimate right to someone else's money, regardless of whether it is for something necessary (food, clother, shelter, medical treatment) or something frivolous (new car, vacation, television, etc.). One is just a lot more grave a circumstance than the other.
  
  It's the ugly reality of living in a world where greed exists and where there is always more need than there is supply. However, as long as human being (who are just as succeptible to greed and wanting their own needs met first) are the governing authorities, there exists just as much likelihood for them to abuse their power over finances and resources as any individual would.
  
  It's a sad, but true, reality.
• Con_Alma

  Amen Otrap.
  
  God speed to your wife's recovery.
• Con_Alma

  Writerbuckeye;773836 wrote:...
  
  Romney will never be the nominee because of this. ...

  This.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;777535 wrote:Amen Otrap.
  
  God speed to your wife's recovery.

  
  Sorry. I wasn't clear. That was a hypothetical.
  
  However, we've been in that place. At one point last year, we thought she had breast cancer, so the scare was very real.
  
  She does have a serious thyroid imbalance which causes her to swing "hypo" and "hyper" seemingly at the drop of a hat. We're wanting to get it removed, because it makes her miserable almost every day, but we cannot afford it.
  
  Still, we work through it, and we save up. She and I both work two jobs right now, and we're trying to get to a place where we can afford it through the insurance from my employer.
  
  My point is, life sucks, and sometimes people don't get what they need, but that doesn't mean anyone else should have their rights stripped away and be forced to help, though I don't mind encouragements for people to do it volitionally.
• stlouiedipalma

  Writerbuckeye;777416 wrote:So which would you rather have, louie, coverage denied by a private insurer -- or coverage denied by some government bureaucrat?
  
  It's going to happen in both situations, and likely already has (via Medicare and Medicaid).

  
  Exactly. There are those whose only argument against a public option is that "they don't want a government bureaucrat deciding what's covered". This only points out that this will exist regardless of which system you have. No one wants to admit it, but there are circumstances where life and death decisions will come up; a "death panel", if you will. Politicizing it won't change a thing.
  
  
  The real challenge for any kind of health care reform is controlling or reducing costs. I don't know if, given the state of healthcare today, it is even possible.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I don't know if it's possible to control costs under this system, either, because the system itself is geared to push costs UP. If you have good insurance and don't feel any pain using it for medical services, you tend to use it more; even over use it. This pushes costs up.
  
  That's why universal coverage everywhere in the world has had to deal with uncontrolled costs; and why I believe a public option would be far worse for us economically. We simply cannot afford it, given we have two systems now that need to be pared back considerably to avoid bankruptcy. Adding millions more to the public rolls is not a way to save money.
  
  I don't care if the entire government is the sole provider and can negotiate for services, it still ends up costing much more over the long term. History has shown it over and over again.
  
  Honestly, I don't know what the best answer is at this point, because we're now in a place where we have to cut costs dramatically to avoid bankrupting our entire system.
  
  Whatever the answer is or ends up being...you can be assured that people will howl, scream, stamp their feet and be generally unhappy. If that doesn't happen, then chances are very good we haven't really resolved anything.